# Terminology reform

The opening "chemical and physical preliminary" chapters, from the Sep 2020 version of Libb Thims' Human Chemical Thermodynamics, which shows that what was formerly called "living force" (vis viva) and "dead force" (vis mortua), underwent a process of terminology reform, resulting in the scientifically-neutral terms: "kinetic energy" (Thomson, 1862) and "potential energy" (Rankine, 1853), respectively.[1]

In hmolscience, terminology reform refers to []

## Overview

A diagram was employed by Libb Thims in his 2016 lecture “Lotka’s Jabberwock: on the ‘Bio’ of BioPhysical Economics” as example of chemical perpetual motion used to make an origin of life argument.[2]

The subject of "reform" in terminology, as in the use of specific "terms" in scientific language, which relies on "exact" language, e.g. exact science, is very subtle, vastly important, often difficult to detect, owing to preconceived ingrained biases, yet more often than not profound, beyond immediate realization of one's errors.

The issue of employing "inappropriate" terminology in respect to characterizing things as living or dead is very subtle to detect, particularly when it comes to animal-related movements. The comparative example can be seen in the 19th century objection to referring to springs as being "dead" when compressed, and "alive" when sprung open:

“The force expended in setting a body in motion is carried by the body itself, and exists with it and in it, throughout the whole course of its motion. This force possessed by moving bodies is termed by mechanical philosophers vis viva, or living force. The term may be deemed by some inappropriate, inasmuch as there is no life, properly speaking, in question; but it is useful, in order to distinguish the moving force from that which is stationary in its character, as the force of gravity. When, therefore, in the subsequent parts of this lecture I employ the term living force, you will understand that I simply mean the force of bodies in motion.”
James Joule (1847), “On Matter, Living Force, and Heat” [3]

This lecture, we note, was given by Joule at St. Ann’s Church reading room. Joule, in other words, was making a theistic-objection to the physicists use of defining springs and moving balls as being either "living" or "dead", per reason that in Joule's mind, "life" was a "gift from god", and not something to be parlayed around in scientific discussion.

## Sun rise | Sun set

The terms "sunrise" and "sunset" are examples of colloquial defunct speak, preserved culturally from ancient geocentric beliefs, namely in the phrase "sun rise", the sun does not technically "rise" upward in the sky, but rather the portion of the surface of the earth, wherein one is located, turns "towards" the sun; likewise, what we mean by "sun set", means that the surface of the earth, wherein one is located, rotates "away" from the sun.[2]

In the 1530s, when the "helio-centric" ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus, eventually codified in his On the Revolution of the Heavenly Orbs (1453), began to circulate, in opposition to the then extant "geo-centric" model of the ancients, children and adults "laughed" at his idea that “sun rise” and “sun set” do not exist; to cite one of many examples:

“There is mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving.”
— Martin Luther (1539), “Comment during dinner meeting”, Jun

Presently, 560+ years later, children, at the age of eight (or 3rd grade) are taught, as a matter of fact, the Copernican view.[2] In this example, while we still employ the technically-defunct terms "sun rise" and "sun set", we quite readily accept, uncontroversially, that the earth goes around the sun, and that sun rise in actuality means a surface of the earth "rotating toward" the sun, and that sun set in actuality means a surface of the earth "rotating away" from the sun.

## Vis Viva → Kinetic | Vis Mortua → Potential

The classic example of terminology reform, and one that has not yet trickled its way up into the proto-sciences of the humanities, involves the two centuries of scientific development and idea transformation that resulted in the terms: "kinetic energy", i.e. energy of motion, usurping the former term "living force" (vis viva), and "potential energy", energy of position, usurping the former "dead force" (vis mortua). The origin of the "vis" as force and "vita" as life, originated in Greek mythological terminology and theory, in respect to the purported life-given attributes of the goddess Venus, below right, who is a rescript of the Roman goddess Aphrodite, who is a rescript of the Egyptian goddess Hathor:

In short, in the original Egyptian model (see: Egyptian pantheon), the Milky Way was conceptualized as large milk-giving cow, called the goddess Hathor, who was thought to have a life-giving power, such that when she placed her magical amulet called "ankh", aka Egyptian cross, shown above (in her hand), to the mouth of the human clay figurines, which were formed by the god Khnum, on his potter's wheel, they would therein, according to the myth, be "brought to life" or given "life". In Greek mythology (see: Greek pantheon), Hathor was rescripted (see: god character rescripts) into the goddess Aphrodite, the goddess of love an beauty. In Roman mythology, Aphrodite became the goddess Venus. In this Roman model, children were taught that living things, i.e. "vita" things, were those things that had the "vis" of Venus in them, vis being thought of as some type of divine force.

### Vita | Vis

All of this religio-mythology cultural transmission of ideas, in respect to the purported origin of humans, by about 100BC, had been distilled down to the point, such as explained in the works of Gaius Lucilius (180-103BC) and Marcus Varro (116-27BC), that people, colloquially, were taught that “vita (life) is given to children by the vis (force) of Venus”; for example:

“The poets, through the conjunction of fire and moisture, are indicating that the vis, ‘force’, which they have is that of Venus [Aphrodite]. Those born of vis have what is called vita, ‘life’, and that is what is meant by Lucilius (c.120BC) when he says: ‘life is force you see: to do everything force doth compel us’.”
— Marcus Varro (c.50BC), On the Latin Language

Said another way:

“According to at least one Roman writer, vis and vita may be both elements of a traditional collocation and derivations of the same root. Varro’s claim that the vita is given to children by the vis of Venus may be an implicit etymology.”
— Jay Fisher (2014), The Annals of Quintus Ennius and the Italian Tradition (pg. 152) [4]

This is equivalent to how, in the original sense, Egyptians taught that the breath of animation is given to children by the ankh of Hathor. The Greco-Roman version is but a cultural rescript of the former. Commonly-used words that are derivatives of this so-called vis vita based Latin etymology, include: vitality, vital energy, vital force, vital heat, vitalism, or curriculum vitae (CV), Latin for “course of one’s life” (1902), among others.[5]

### Bible

In 300AD, with the rise of Judeo-Christian religio-mythology system, the Egyptian-Greco-Roman version of this god power animating clay myth, was rescripted to the affect that the "ankh of Hathor", which became the "vis of Venus", became the Biblical story of the divine "breath of god" bring animation to Adam, formed from clay or the dust of the ground, depicted as follows:

A synopsis of the religio-mythological origin of the root term "mor-", found in terms such as vis mortua (dead force), mortal, moral, mortuary, etc., which derives the Roman god Mor, the god of death, who is a rescript of the Egyptian god Thanatos, whose derives from Egyptian mythology, in ways not fully understood, but related premise of the phoenix, in the form of the sun, dying or "extinguishing" each night, most of which is told in the five recensions of the the god Set doing battle with the sun god each night.

Or described in words as follows:

“And lord god formed man of the dust of the ground, and ‘breathed into his nostrils’ the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
— Anon (100AD), Bible (Genesis 2:7), KJV (1611)

Hereafter, in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths, this became known as the "clay creation myth".[6]

### Mor | Mortua | Morality

The origin of the term “vis mortua” arose in a similar fashion to that of vis viva, aside from the fact that the Egyptian to Greek transmission is more difficult to pin down. In short, in 700BC, Hesiod, in his Theogony, introduced the Greek pantheon of gods, the bulk of which being a recension of the Egyptian pantheon, in which he introduced the god Thanatos[7], aka the Greek god of death, as described as the son of Nyx (Night) and Erebos (Darkness), twin of Hypnos (Sleep), and sibling to other negative personifications such as: Geras (Old Age), Oizys (Suffering), Moros (Doom), Apate (Deception), Momus (Blame), Eris (Strife), Nemesis (Retribution), and even the Acherousian/Stygian boatman Charon.

In 300BC, in Roman mythology, Thanatos was rescripted into the god Mor, the Roman god of death, characterized as a dark winged figure who arrives at the time of death; who is described by Ovid as a winding sheet and holding a scythe and hour glass.[8] Mor, in modern times, is known as the Grim Reaper. Derivative terms include: mortality, moral, immorial, moribus (customs), mortuary, mori (to die) [Latin], “queries morir?” (do you want to die?) [Spanish], among others.

### ½mv2

The gist history of the transformation of the religio-mythology based vis viva and vis mortua, into scientifically neutral terms, is summarized as follows:

Original Intermediate Reformation
Momento | Quasi force

(Galileo, 1592)

${\displaystyle mv}$

(Descartes, 1640)

${\displaystyle mv^{2}}$

(Huygens, 1669)

Vis Viva | Living force

(Leibniz, 1686)

T or ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}}$

(Lagrange, 1788)

Actual energy

(Rankine, 1853)

Kinetic energy

(Thomson, 1862)

T

(Clausius, 1875)

(Galileo, 1638)

(Leibniz, 1673)

V

(Lagrange, 1788)

Latent energy Potential energy

(Rankine, 1853)

J or ergal

(Clausius, 1875)

In sum, in the 17th century, Latin language, the scientific standard, was employed by Galileo, e.g. "peso morto" (dead weight), and Leibniz, e.g. vis viva (living force) and vis mortua (dead force), to describe motions and energies associated with metal balls being dropped, collided together, or being in a position of height. Following Leibniz, who was a "theist", and quite amenable to employing anthropomorphic-stylized "living" and "dead" terminology to the movements metal balls, his vis mortua and vis viva terminology took hold in the minds of physicists for the next two centuries; the following is one synopsis:

Vis mortua and vis viva, in mechanics, are terms used by Leibnitz and his followers for ‘force’, which they distinguish into two kinds, vis mortua, and vis viva; understanding by the former any kind of ‘pressure’, or an endeavor to move, not sufficient to produce actual motion, unless its action on a body be continued for some time; and by the latter, that force or power of acting which resides in a body in motion.”
— Charles Hutton (1815), A Philosophical and Mathematical Dictionary, Volume Two (pg. 568)

In 1788, Lagrange, who was an "atheist", and not so amenable to using anthropomorphic-based terminology in physics, in his Analytical Mechanics (1788), introduced the symbol T to mean half the “total” vis viva (sum of all the masses, each multiplied by the square of its velocity), and V, in reference to something (add), in place of the vis mortua.[9]

By 1875, with the solidification of the new science of thermodynamics, generally by Thomson, Rankine, and Clausius, all of the former "living" and "dead" terminology labelings of "forces", were expunged from physics proper, and replaced with: kinetic energy and potential energy, both of which being theologically-free and scientifically neutral. This, in short, is the archetype historical example, wherein defunct religio-mythology laden historical terms were reformed and or upgraded into scientifically-neutral terms, applicable throughout the universe.

## Abioism | Alive → Powered

As the previous outline has shown, scientifically, we have scrubbed out the so-called magical life force, or divine power, of the "ankh" of Hathor, or the "vis" of Venus, from scientific terminology, at least in respect to the terms: force, kinetic energy, potential energy, and energy in general. Most of the ramifications of this were dealt with in the famous vitalism debates of the 19th century, e.g. when Friedrich Wohler (1828) synthesize urea, an organic or animal based chemical, from cyanic acid and ammonia, two so-called “inorganic” chemicals, or when Emil Reymond, Ernst Brucke, Hermann Helmholtz, and Carl Ludwig all signed their famous so-called “Reymond-Brucke oath” (1843), in blood, in reaction to their teacher Johannes Muller’s vitalism beliefs, that only pure physico-chemical forces operate in organisms.

What has remained, however, rearing its head reoccurringly, is what is termed "neo-vitalism", a sublimated or latent vitalism, that only becomes clearly seen in heated debates, such as when in the 1960s atheist Francis Crick did battle with the theological scientists: Hans Driesch, Henri Bergson, Pierre Teilhard, and Michael Polanyi, after which, as explained in his Of Molecules and Men (pg. 5), he famously declared that "we should abandon the world alive". In recent years, this progressive point of view, following the defunct theory of life debate (2009 to 2012), has resulted in abioism, and a large amount of so-called life terminology reform.[10]

## Self → Auto

In 1892, Karl Pearson, in his The Grammar of Science, cogently stated that the employment of the term “self”, as in self-determination or self-motion, is a violation of the principle of inertia, namely that “no physical corpuscle need be conceived as changing its motion except in the presence of other corpuscles”, and therefore, accordingly, the term "self" is defunct, as per the modern grammar of science.[11] This has resulted in a certain amount of self terminology reform.[12]

## Teleology → Purpose → Potential minimas

See main: Purpose terminology reform [13]
In 1925, Albert Weiss, in his "rain-drop analogy", showed the silliness in thinking, via anthropomorphic reasoning, that the "purpose" of every drop of water in the atmosphere is to get to the ground or ocean; stating likewise, that human behavior is but a more complicated form of the same forces that act on rain drops; according to which, it is, likewise, “silly” to assign purpose to human behavior.[14]

In the 20th century, the works of Alfred Lotka (1925; 1934), Harold Blum (1934), Max Planck (1949), Bruce Lindsay (1983), and Libb Thims (2014) began to outline the way in which teleology-themed views, and anthropomorphism-slanted purpose models, could be reformulated into the new thermodynamic potential view of things.

Purpose terminology reform, accordingly, employs physico-chemically neutral terminology to human movements, so as to not invoke anthropisms or teleology (see: chemical teleology) in the description, but still captures the concept of purpose or “divine a sense of purpose”, as Einstein (1932) phrased things, in Spinoza atheistic terms.

In 2007, Vicente Talanquer, following his dissectional analysis of the language employed in eight leading US college chemistry textbooks, found that the mindsets of many chemists are filled with subtle "teleological" explanations of chemical behavior, found particularly used in descriptions of the the second law, Le Chatelier's principle, and the octet rule (Abegg's rule); while much of his analysis is cogent; some of his "word phrasing" usage objections are quite subtle, and difficult to discern.

## Love → Affinities

See main: Love terminology reform [15]

The premise of “terminology reform”, in respect to the deeply-ingrained terms “love” and “hate” is a complicated subject, to say the least. In one sense, what goes on in the "test tube", physico-chemically speaking, must be the same as what goes on in YouTube, as both, after all, are governed by "one and the same nature". There is, however, a large disjunct, presently, in respect to the "language" of romance, allowed in the later, but since banished, scientifically from the former, being classified as "objectionable nonsense", after about the 1920s:

“Just as man and woman attract one another, so oxygen attracts hydrogen, and, in loving union with it, forms water, that mighty omnipresent element, without which no life nor thought would be possible.”
— Ludwig Buchner (c.1855), cited by Henry Finck (1887) in Romantic Love and Beauty (pgs. 6-7)

What is clear, is that what we refer to as “love” is a function of a thermodynamic potential, as pointed bout by Rankine (1845), and that the “forces” of love are quantified as chemical affinities, as explained by Goethe (1809):

Love is a function of x, y, and z, of a kind which is known as ‘potential’. If the wandering course of the moon, by algebra can be predicted, human affections must yield to it soon.”
— William Rankine (c.1845), “The Mathematician in Love” [16]
A cartoon-style synopsis of where “love terminology” become problematic, namely on the left side we can joke about how Na and Cl just “love” hanging out with each other, just as the three women, at right just “love” hanging out with each other, but when both are described via the exact sciences of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics, the need for exacting non-anthropomorphic language, applicable to both, becomes paramount.
“Meanwhile, in this play of the atoms, what dominating force presides? The old chemistry had assimilated the varying attractions between different substances to the human passions. The atoms hate and love, seek or reject, their fellows. They, too, have their "affinities." Of this antique idea we catch an echo in Goethe's well-known tale. For Berthelot's iconoclastic spirit, the ‘affinities’ were but princely phantoms like the "vital forces" themselves. The real agent here is heat. With this conception the new science of thermo-chemistry was born, and its godfather was the founder of chemical synthesis.”
— Carl Snyder (1902), “Fifty Years of Synthetic Chemistry”
“Similar forces to those that thus bring together the opposite sexes are everywhere evident and acting in the so-called material world, and in the judgment of the writer, equally natural and all-conquering. In our conceit and blindness we call the one force ‘love’, and the other force ‘affinity’; but mere alteration of words cannot alter the fact that the two words are the expression of the same force in nature.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe

In short, what we mean by "falling in love", tends to refer to when one is on the right side of the transition state of an endergonic human chemical reaction. What we mean by being "in love", as found in long-term stable marriages, tends to refer to a bond formation, with a 5-to-1 attraction to repulsion ratio in the exchange force of the union.

## Chance → Determinism

In 1973, Ernest Schoffeniels, in his Anti-Chance, gives a good overview of the misuse of both "chance" based language, and also "teleology" schemes, misused at the chemical, zoological, and social level.

## References

1. Thims, Libb. (2020). Human Chemical Thermodynamics — Chemical Thermodynamics Applied to the Humanities: Meaning, Morality, Purpose; Sociology, Economics, Ecology; History, Philosophy, Government, Anthropology, Politics, Business, Jurisprudence; Religion, Relationships, Warfare, and Love (pdf). Publisher.
2. Professor, Baby. (2020). Sunrise and Sunset: Effects of Planetary Motion: Space Science Book for 3rd Grade Children’s Astronomy and Space. Speedy Publishing.
3. Joule, James. (1847). “On Matter, Living Force, and Heat”, Lecture at St. Ann’s Church Reading room; in: Manchester Courier newspaper, May 5 and 12; in The Scientific Papers, Volume 1 (pg. 266). The Physical Society, Great Britain.
4. Fisher, Jay. (2014). The Annals of Quintus Ennius and the Italic Tradition (vis est vita, pg. 152). JHT Press.
5. Vita – Hmolpedia 2020.
6. Clay creation myth – Hmolpedia 2020.